FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 16, 1999

• 1535

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Before we begin, I'd like to invite the cameramen to please leave the room. Thank you.

Today we're honoured to have with us the Honourable Pierre Pettigrew, Minister for International Trade. With him is Jonathan Fried, assistant deputy minister for trade and economic policy.

Welcome, Minister Pettigrew. I think we've been awaiting this, your first appearance before our committee. Most of us are looking...well, we're all looking forward to it.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade): Thank God, Madam Chair, you said that. I'm getting some comfort from it. I was beginning to wonder who was not looking forward to this discussion.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's a great pleasure for me to be here today.

I do want to thank the members of the committee for giving me this opportunity to meet with you today. I will try my best to respect your time limits, so I will be short in my opening remarks.

I thank Mr. Jonathan Fried for joining me here at the table.

[Translation]

I would like to begin by congratulating the committee for its excellent report, “Canada and the Future of the World Trade Organization” . More generally, I want to thank all of you for the time you have spent listening to Canadians.

Because trade negotiations directly touch the lives of Canadians, it is more important than ever that we consult them, an understanding clearly demonstrated by your committee.

[English]

Your report was received with enthusiasm, and I am delighted to say that the government agrees, on the whole, with the committee's recommendations. As such, it was my pleasure to table our response yesterday in the House of Commons.

I also want to thank the committee members who filed minority reports and to assure you that your concerns have also been carefully considered and will continue to be carefully considered during the round of negotiations.

In my remarks today I would like to focus on two principles that I believe must inform our policies and direct our actions. Those principles are confidence and coherence. Let me explain what I mean by these.

As this committee well knows, Canada is a trading country, and trade is indeed vital to our continued prosperity. International trade accounts for one in every three jobs in Canada. Indeed, the vast majority of the more than 1.9 million jobs created since this government was elected in 1993 have actually come from the growth in exports.

Only five years ago, international trade accounted for 30% of our GDP. That figure is now 43%. In five short years we have grown exports from 30% of GDP to 43%—five short years. This is higher than any other G-8 nation. We have seen similar growth in foreign direct investment in our country, up 54% since 1993.

There can be no doubt that Canada's exposure to international competition has energized our economy, spurred innovation, and created hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians.

It has demonstrated that we can compete and win in international markets. I am convinced that a large part of our success is due to the fact that we have developed our international position in close consultation with the provinces. Just recently, for example, on October 7 I had a very productive meeting with my provincial counterparts, and I'm delighted that six of them will be accompanying me to Seattle. We will be working closely together.

• 1540

We therefore approach this next round of WTO negotiations with confidence, the confidence of a country that is outward-looking and that sees the whole world as its marketplace.

As you know, we did not achieve this degree of economic integration with the world in a vacuum. We did it within the security of a rules-based system, and we must not abandon that process now. On the contrary, we must improve this rules-based system and adapt its rules to reflect such new developments in trade as e-commerce. Participation in world markets is Canada's path to prosperity, and we must follow it.

[Translation]

Of course, this view is not unanimous and this committee has certain concerns that the new negotiations represent a threat to cherished social programs, to labour standards, the environment or to human rights.

While I do not share those concerns, I do understand them. Let me be absolutely clear, Madam Chair: Canada's health and education systems are not on the table. For us, these are simply not negotiable. As you will see in our response to your report, this government is committed to making progress on the social dimensions of trade, to ensuring that Canadian values and social programs are protected and that the benefits of trade are distributed widely throughout society.

[English]

Globalization must have a human face. It cannot be seen as something that is happening to people. We want globalization to be seen as, and to be, something that is happening for people. It must be seen as something that is worthy of their support because it is relevant to their lives and resonant with their values.

In other words, Madam Chair, there must be a clear connection in people's minds between what we do at the WTO and what they can do in their own neighbourhoods and in their own lives.

Let me also say that I think it would be a mistake to put trade and further trade liberalization on hold while we solve these other issues. This would be missing the point completely. Human rights abuses, for example, are not caused by trade. In fact, history shows that as countries have opened their borders to liberalized trade, democratic values have been as much a part of the flow of trade as have any goods and services. It is no coincidence that we have seen democracy gain a foothold in so many new places over the last 45 years. Trade is not the problem. It is part of the solution.

To delay trade liberalization while we address these other issues would be to deprive ourselves of one of the most potent means of resolving them. I strongly believe trade leads to development.

The better approach is to increase coordination among the various international organizations and institutions, such as UNCTAD, the International Labour Organization, the IMF, and the World Bank.

At the moment, we see many different groups that have concerns about globalization bringing those concerns to the trade arena. Whether it is labour standards, environmental issues, or human rights, those involved have focused their attention on the trade process in general and on the WTO in particular.

What is required is for all of the international organizations I mentioned to work more effectively so that these issues can be addressed in the appropriate forum and in a coherent manner. We can't have, for example, the International Monetary Fund telling countries to increase tariffs at the same time that we have the WTO calling for lower tariffs around the world.

This is why we call for increased coherence, and our call for increased coherence is something I will be bringing to the WTO's discussions in Seattle. I believe it is essential if we are to overcome some of the resistance we are starting to see in some quarters.

• 1545

[Translation]

As I close, Madam Chair, let me restate this government's support for the World Trade Organization. Canada has benefited greatly from the open, rules-based trading system that has been developed over the past 50 years and we know that our future prosperity depends on our continued ability to trade with the world.

I believe Canadians want us to continue to pursue these goals. I believe they want us to pursue globalization with a human face, remembering that people, not profits, should be the focus of our efforts.

I can assure this committee that those are goals which this government shares and will work hard to see realized.

I will now be happy to answer your questions and react to your comments. I thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you, Minister.

The first round of questions will be ten minutes, and we'll begin with Mr. Obhrai. It's ten minutes for both the question and the answer, so if you want to preamble for nine, then you won't get an answer.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): I'm sure the minister would love for me to make a preamble for nine minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming before the committee.

I read your report, and I noticed you talked about the minority report. As you know, we filed a minority report. We see your response to the committee, I would probably venture to say, as being pretty weak, because in the minority report we asked specifically about four points that are not addressed.

First, as you know, we feel agriculture is the number one priority. We know you mentioned agriculture in your report, and we know you understand the issues of subsidies being a problem, but from listening to you, I seem to get the impression that culture and other issues are more important to you than agriculture, which is not taking the top billing. We feel agriculture should be taking top billing when we go into Seattle. It is impacting farmers very strongly.

Our second concern, Mr. Minister, is the involvement in consultation process. Now, I've been on the committee, so let's not say that I have not been involved in the consultation process. I have been, and we've gone around. However, I still feel that the consultation process has not been broad and open to the Canadians in the way it should have been. The MIA is a good example of what happens if you don't have a broad-based consultation process. What concerns us is that the consultation process has been taken over by so-called civil society with a different agenda.

Now, I understand that the issues of environment and human rights are very important, but we feel that the WTO should not be the vehicle to do that. There are other United Nations vehicles I see you have dwelt on here; nevertheless, we have a concern that civil society would have a direct involvement in PACs, for instance.

I have nothing against civil society, but I think they should go through their elected representatives, the parliamentary committees, or through input to you. They are unaccountable and unelected.

Third, you said briefly that six provincial ministers would be accompanying you. We feel that the consultation process with the provinces has been only at the ministerial level. It does not go one step further down, where the provinces themselves would be having talks and trying to get more broad-based input into this treaty, which is going to affect everybody, including the provinces.

So I think you are lacking there, going one step further down. Just talking to the provincial ministers does not mean it's an extensive consultation process.

• 1550

Our final point here is that these talks come only when the bills are presented. Members of Parliament only get involved, aside from the committee here, when you need to change existing legislation, to meet your obligation, that has already been signed. We would like to see more input, involvement of the members of Parliament as well as the provincial legislatures prior to your signing the deal. We do not want a Kyoto type of a deal, where a figure is chosen and then later on rammed into the Parliament. It needs to be discussed before that's done.

I would appreciate your comments on that, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Thank you very much, Mr. Obhrai. I will address the four points you've raised. Again, I thank you for the minority report you did table; we did look into it very carefully.

On agriculture, let me reassure you, this is a very major priority for our government, certainly for me. I've been addressing that issue loud and clear in the last few weeks. My colleague Lyle Vanclief also tabled a position specifically on agriculture in the month of August, a position that of course I share as Minister for International Trade.

The Minister for Agriculture, Lyle Vanclief, will be joining me at Seattle. Indeed, agriculture is an extremely important sector for us—in particular in the present circumstances, but it is at all times. I think we have developed a position that makes a great deal of sense for Canadian farmers. We are going at it very aggressively, very determined to make points and make progress on international markets.

Our position is very important. I developed in Toronto two weeks ago the consensus of the 34 democratic countries of the Americas, including those countries that are part of the Lomé convention, to support our stance calling for an elimination of the export subsidies. That was a major breakthrough that we developed at the Toronto meeting of the Americas, which I had the pleasure and the honour of chairing early in the month.

So we did work very hard on agriculture, and we will continue, I can tell you that.

On civil society, I have proposed to you today, and in our report, to certainly work at bringing more coherence between the WTO and other international organizations. You know, part of the WTO's problem right now is its success. Because the WTO, which succeeded GATT in 1995, is such a successful organization, everyone who would like to make progress on other agendas wants to use the trade tool of WTO to do it. I believe, however, that the WTO has a leadership role to play because it's been very successful, and therefore the WTO can indeed work more closely with international labour organizations and UNCTAD and other international organizations—the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank—in order to have more coherence in our action.

I think it is a responsibility of the WTO to help others to build a better world in order to alleviate some of the concerns people have right now. We are helping ourselves by helping others to do a better job with some other issues. I believe civil society has a lot to contribute to our deliberations. I believe it is important that we hear points of view. You know, governments do not have a monopoly on vision, or on all the facts. It is important that we be open to civil society.

We had an extraordinary experience in Toronto on the free trade area of the Americas meeting, where 22 countries, led by Canada, came to meet civil society of the Americas. This was extraordinary progress, I believe—when civil society and 22 governments of the Americas under the leadership of the Canadian government became involved in a healthy dialogue. It was a very successful meeting, and I believe we ought to continue to do things like that.

• 1555

On the provincial side, I am extremely pleased that six provincial ministers are coming. We would have taken more; it's just that six have asked and we've accepted all the provincial ministers who have asked. But I can tell you that the consultations go way beyond the provincial ministers and the federal ministers meeting. We have officials meeting all the time and in depth, and for the general public we have the website that is available day in and day out. We have daily exchange of information with citizens and the provincial administrations as well.

Now, as to the role of MPs, I'm sensitive to the concern you've brought forward. I know what serious work this committee has been doing, and let me tell you that I will be very pleased as the negotiations proceed to make my officials and myself available to discussion and to making sure we're all well informed so we can do the best serious work possible.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Welcome to the committee, Minister. I'm happy to see you here today.

Minister, many of the matters that will be examined in Seattle have to do with matters under provincial jurisdiction. We already looked at this briefly during question period, but our exchanges are unfortunately always too brief. I can't help but emphasize the fact that you answered that the European Commission represents its 15 member countries and that the countries are not speaking in their own names.

However, you forgot to mention that the member countries of the European Union can appoint a negotiator who will be part of the bargaining team and not simply observers. It's the observer role you're offering the provinces at this point. To pursue this analogy with the European Union, Minister, would you be ready to grant the provinces not an observer status but a negotiator status at the Canadian delegation's table?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: This parallel with the European Union was linked to the question of participating in the Seattle negotiations. As I explained, I believe Canadians, in general, are reinforced by the fact that Canada is speaking with one voice. I was saying that, as the Europeans chose to speak with only one voice, there are certainly advantages and even major advantages in speaking with one voice only to set out the totality of our interests.

Please note that I didn't make the comparison with the European Union for all aspects. I'm very conscious that there is a difference. Canada is a country and so it's Canada that is the member of the World Trade Organization. As you know, France and Germany are members of the World Trade Organization. These countries have chosen to negotiate within the context of the European Union, Brussels being whom they chose to speak for them even though they are sovereign countries.

Canada is a federation whose interest and advantage lies with speaking with a single voice. As you know, there's only one member at the World Trade Organization, and that's Canada.

Mr. Richard Marceau: If I understand you correctly, you agree to go up to a certain point in this parallel with the European Union, but after that point—

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, yes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: —it suits you a lot less.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: The question isn't whether it suits me or not. You're no doubt alluding to the Quebec situation more particularly. I regret to say that the independence or sovereignty objective that you're pursuing was rejected by the Quebec people. I'm saying that, the people of Quebec having chosen to stay with Canada, Canada is the member of the World Trade Organization.

We want to work very closely with the provinces. I am working very well with the Quebec government. Before being appointed to this department, I negotiated the employment transfer agreement with the Quebec government. I repeat that I work very well with the Quebec government and I have no problems.

Mr. Richard Marceau: You know that during the last four meetings of the provincial premiers, they asked you, unanimously, for the permission to be at the bargaining table not just as observers but as participants.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes. I was present at a meeting with my provincial colleagues where all the provinces were represented. We then agreed on a very clear work process which was that Canada would sit for Canada and all Canadians and that we would work very closely with each one of the provinces.

• 1600

Mr. Marceau, the other day I asked my provincial colleagues to share with me a concrete problem within the context of the negotiations and I told them we'd settle it. If you were to ask me to develop an official and legal framework that would limit Canada's leeway and speed of reaction, I think we'd all be losers.

It is important that we be shown trust and confidence concerning the matter of this leeway. I asked them to give me an example of a problem. I don't see any problems. In any case, none of the provinces submitted a single problem to me in the area of trade negotiations.

Mr. Richard Marceau: On page 23 of your report, you state:

The government agrees that Canada should pursue a new international instrument on cultural diversity.

In the following paragraph it says:

The development of an international instrument on cultural diversity will likely take several years.

This morning, during a briefing session given by your department, we asked: “You favour an international instrument favouring cultural diversity and you admit yourselves that this will take several years. In the meantime, what are you defending?” No one was able to answer that.

It's a bit problematic because, in a letter dated November 12, 1999 and signed by three Quebec government ministers, you received a rather clear position concerning cultural diversity. They wish that any reference to this concept, that you hold so dear personally, should in no case, and I quote, "lead neither to the creation of a work group nor to an interpretation by some future panel".

Can you guarantee that this position on cultural diversity will lead neither to the creation of a work group nor to an interpretation by some future WTO panel?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: First, I'd like to emphasize strongly that Quebec is not alone, in isolation, in the matter of cultural diversity. I would remind you that at the time of the Free Trade Agreement negotiations with the U.S.A., in the mid-80s, there were many cultural constituencies in the rest of Canada that felt they were getting very little support from Quebec. Everyone in Quebec, and this includes all political parties, had supported free trade with the U.S.A.. Many cultural constituencies elsewhere in the country, not having the benefit of the natural language barrier, were more concerned about the American presence in matters cultural.

I don't believe that we should isolate Quebec, making it feel as though it's the only one concerned about this cultural issue. In the rest of Canada, we find the same desire and the same need to foster cultural diversity and protect the right of governments to take action on cultural matters in order to preserve this cultural diversity.

Let me tell you that I was quite pleased to receive the letter from my colleagues dated November 12, because I noticed some openness, in the position of the Quebec government itself, to the approach being taken by the Canadian government, that is, that we want to try to develop a new instrument for discussing cultural issues because these are issues that are very different from other trade issues.

We realize that it will take some time to develop it and we do not want to go ahead with it unless the WTO also recognizes that governments have the right to preserve cultural diversity, and thus to take action in such a key, vital sector, and so not only would we be truly capable of promoting the same objective of cultural diversity with this new instrument, but the World Trade Organization would also recognize that we have this right.

Mr. Richard Marceau: What do we do during the time leading up to the talks which, from your own admission, will take several years? You'll be going to Seattle in 13 days. Apart from requesting that there be a reference to cultural diversity, which presents certain problems in itself, what is the Canadian government's position?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We want the World Trade Organization also to recognize the right of governments to protect and preserve their cultural diversity. I've had a number of talks with the French minister Huwart. I've discussed this at great length with Pascal Lamy, the European Commissioner. It's a position that I've discussed with several ministers of the Americas on their visits here, because a number of ministers from Latin America were also interested in this question. It's a position that I believe is gaining ground and that would very effectively protect our objectives and our interests in this sector.

• 1605

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Your time is up. Thank you.

Mr. Robinson.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): On a point of order,

[Translation]

would Mr. Marceau kindly provide a copy of the letter to which he's referring to all committee members?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Would that be possible, Mr. Marceau?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'll have photocopies made.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to make it clear that while the minister indicated that in general terms he welcomed the report of this committee on the upcoming trade round at Seattle, my colleague, the trade spokesperson for the New Democratic Party, Bill Blaikie, as the minister will be well aware, filed a strong dissenting report. I suspect the minister wasn't quite as welcoming of that report as he was perhaps of the majority report, but certainly that frames my questions on behalf of my colleagues.

I think the minister should be clear in terms of our position. He knows it's our position that before there's any further trade or investment liberalization of the WTO, we seek significant changes in the existing structure of the WTO to ensure it deals with social, environmental, labour, and human rights issues in a much more effective and enforceable way. In the absence of that, clearly we don't want to see any further liberalization.

I have questions in two or three areas. The first is to follow up on the issue of culture and the question I asked the minister in question period today, which he didn't have an opportunity to respond to.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: You asked two questions, Svend.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, I asked two questions and I was looking for two answers.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I chose the first one.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'll give you a chance now.

The minister's colleague, the heritage minister, said last month that what we're seeking in the Seattle round is an explicit reference in the WTO that culture is not to be negotiated at the WTO, period.

Of course the minister talked about a stand-alone instrument, and that's all well and good, but unless there is a carve-out of culture itself, there is still always a risk. We recall earlier assurances from this government around the Auto Pact, around other cultural programs, and so on, which turned out to be inaccurate, to say the least.

I'm asking the minister, is this government seeking a carve-out of culture, as the heritage minister indicated last month?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We will not negotiate and we will not support the formation of a negotiating group at the WTO. We will not even support a study group on cultural products at the WTO.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Does that mean the minister is seeking a carve-out of—

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I'm sorry, I don't know what “carve-out” means. Do you mean an exemption? Do you mean an elimination of the subject by carving out?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No, what I'm saying is for anything that is on services—and that's what I was trying to explain as well on health and education to some of your colleagues—the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the GATS, is a system that is bottom-up. That is, if you do not voluntarily adopt it or take up that particular subject, you do not have to.

Indeed, culture is the same thing. You don't have to take a carve-out or demand an exemption. If you are silent on the subject, it means an exemption, so you don't have to ask for it de facto. If you don't take it up, it's not there.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The minister knows there's a proposal to change the bottom-up formulation of the GATS to a top-down formulation.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I'm glad you said that. That is false. The United States has not asked for that change. It is a myth that the Americans would have asked for that, or anyone else. Nobody is asking for a change from the bottom-up approach to the top-down.

We support the bottom-up approach. The Americans have not asked for a change, and as long as it is bottom-up, if you don't voluntarily integrate it or adhere to it, it's accepted.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, the minister knows, of course, and the minister has said himself, that Canadian companies want to have access to other countries' markets in the areas of health care and education. Those other countries aren't just going to give access to their markets without something in return. The minister knows that. Of course the concern is precisely that the quid pro quo may very well be access to Canada's public and not-for-profit health care and education systems. I want to ask the minister very clearly, does he not recognize that this is a concern?

• 1610

The minister has said and was quoted on October 7 in the Globe and Mail as saying “I'm not talking exemption on this or that”. So if the minister says he's not talking exemption of health care or education, the question then clearly is if we're going to give corporations from Canada access to those markets in other countries in health care and education, why wouldn't they come after us and say they want access to our health care and education system as well? If we say no to that, what are we going to give them as a quid pro quo?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We do not have to ask for an exemption. If we don't voluntarily adhere or take up in a particular field or a particular sector, it is exempted.

Who are we, Canada, to decide that other countries should not want to offer concessions to their trade partners in any particular field?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Concessions for what, for nothing?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No, Mr. Robinson, imagine that a country decides that to strengthen its health sector it would need services from other countries that have better-developed health corporations or whatever. That country will put it on the table. Can we, Canada, say other countries cannot trade in health services at the international level?

We're saying for any country that wants to make concessions on the health field, respecting their sovereignty, it would be up to their government to make that decision. And I'm saying that countries may very well make a concession in a particular sphere, in a particular sector, but we do not have to make concessions in the same sector. The whole world trade system is about making concessions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's about give and take.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Give and take, but not in the same sector.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The question is, what's Canada going to give if those other countries in fact allow us to move into their sector? It's not going to be to strengthen their health care sector.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Maybe they will ask for some industrial tariff reduction in a particular field. Maybe they will ask for something in financial services. Maybe they will ask for I don't know what. I'm telling you that health will not be on the table for Canada, nor will public education. It is a bottom-up approach, and we will not go that route.

Mr. Svend Robinson: What about another proposal that some have made, that there be a chapter 11 investor state dispute mechanism within the structure of the WTO similar to the NAFTA proposal? The minister knows that has been a disaster. It's a secret unaccountable bureaucracy. I'm asking the minister for a categorical assurance that Canada will not support any such investor state dispute mechanism in WTO.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Canada will not support any chapter 11 or similar arrangement within the WTO. I can be absolutely clear on that subject.

Mr. Svend Robinson: One of the other issues, of course, is where, under the existing WTO, a jurisdiction wants to impose human rights standards, for example, or labour standards.

The State of Massachusetts decided they wanted to forbid purchase from companies that are involved in Myanmar, under their state procurement policies. Under the WTO, as I understand it, they were told they couldn't do that, and that was struck down.

I ask the minister, is that acceptable to this government? If not, what is this government doing to change that within the existing WTO?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I believe we have to use the right institution to promote the right agenda. To me, trade leads to development, and you cannot begin to play around with this. I think the WTO can lead by example, can certainly help other international institutions to develop better mechanisms, better ways of doing it. And we need to have coherence between the work of the several international institutions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Here's a state that said it didn't want to buy from companies that trade with the repressive regime in Burma. The WTO told them they can't do that. Is that acceptable to the Government of Canada?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I'm saying we do not want to accept measures that would begin to accept unilateralism and bring trade distortion by unilaterally determining what should be done about what.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Human rights and environment and social policy—

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I believe we should do better on labour standards. We want the formation of a working group between the WTO and the International Labour Organisation.

On human rights, we're promoting a great deal of human rights. Unlike you, I believe trade leads to development, and the best way to promote human rights is to bring prosperity. Development leads to better human rights. We have a lot more democracy today than we did fifty years ago, and that has a lot do with the fact that we have opened the borders in the field of trade.

• 1615

Mr. Svend Robinson: That certainly hasn't worked in China, Mr. Minister.

My last question is—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Robinson, your time is up.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have just one very brief final question.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Well, there's not time. You can ask it in the next round.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It will be very brief.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): The next round.

Monsieur Bachand, please.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Welcome to the committee, Mr. Minister.

Before going any further, I'd like to come back to the WTO. We hear a lot about it. I have heard you give answers like “we won't talk about that” or “we don't have to sign on to that” or “everything is negotiable”.

In the end, what's your agenda? What is our starting point and what priorities should we set out clearly so that people will understand what's at stake? You are now saying that we will not discuss either the health care system or the education system. If I understood you correctly a few minutes ago, you were referring to the public education system. Does that mean that we won't be discussing either health or education, or simply that we won't be discussing the systems themselves?

With regard to the cultural sector, you say that we don't have to sign on. If we don't sign on, we will automatically be shut out. Some groups claim that we should perhaps come back to the notions of exclusion, exception and protection. What are your objectives? What are you going to discuss?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Well, we're going to talk about lowering the customs tariffs that still exist in the world and that are sometimes very high. We will be aiming at eliminating or at least reducing the remaining very high customs tariffs in industrial sectors. There are customs tariffs as high as 50, 55 or 60% in many countries which now have a large-scale industrial economy and which constitute important markets for Canada. We will be tackling this problem in a very clear and very specific way.

As far as agriculture is concerned, we will have to work extremely hard in putting forward our position. In Toronto, I was even able to obtain the consent of all the countries of the Americas to be in a position to speak about a consensus on the part of the democratic nations of the Americas on obtaining a reduction in or, if possible, the elimination of export subsidies for agricultural products, so as to put an end to this madness between the United States and the European Union over subsidies.

We'll want to discuss access to markets, an improved access to services markets. We have many service providers in the Canadian economy that are very competent and still face a lot of barriers throughout the world, in other markets and in other economies. Improving access to the services market is one of our priorities. I'm talking about engineering, architecture, people who work in the fields of marketing or consulting, an occupation that I had the pleasure of carrying on for a very long time. I believe that some improvements are possible in this area. So, there's no shortage of subjects.

We have a huge amount of work to do. We'd like to modernize and adjust the rules that have served Canada well at the World Trade Organization, for example, in the area of modern technologies, technological innovations in the field of commerce, including electronic commerce. We want to ensure that the rules that have served Canadians well, as we have defined them at the World Trade Organization, can be adapted and adjusted for electronic commerce, for example. We therefore have a huge amount of work to do.

Mr. André Bachand: Very good. If I understand correctly, in the end, the agenda may well cover all of the areas in which the WTO is involved today. There will be no specific items on the agenda. If I understand what you are saying, at the week's end, in Seattle, there will be no list of discussion topics put forward. In sum, in your opinion, it will be another round of negotiations, something like the last one, if I understand correctly.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: The countries are going to submit subjects for discussion. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Mr. André Bachand: What I mean is that, for many people, the first week of talks in Seattle will be spent deciding on the agenda.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, that's right, on the agenda and the scope of the negotiations, among other things. There still remains much work to be done on this. The Americans, for instance, still want a more limited and more targeted agenda, that would be accompanied by a tight three-year timetable. The Europeans, on the other hand, would like an agenda that is much broader, that they refer to as “comprehensive” in the language of Brussels, which means as wide-ranging as possible. So we have a lot of work to do between now and the Seattle meetings.

We at the Canadian government are working very closely with Mr. Mike Moore, the Director General of the World Trade Organization. We are having discussions with our partners, Ms. Barshefsky and Mr. Lamy. We Canadians want to launch a ninth round of talks. So we are more flexible. I would say that our attitude is characterized by a flexibility on these matters. We don't believe it would be advisable to negotiate in advance what we would like to talk about over the next few years, at the time of the Seattle declaration.

• 1620

We'd like to launch a round of talks. Consequently, we are now attempting to find some common ground between the Europeans and the Americans, whose positions regarding the nature of this round are perhaps the farthest apart. Therefore, our position applies to all of the subjects that we'd like to cover.

Mr. André Bachand: Thank you. I have just one other short question.

A new player, China, wants to join the WTO. Will that happen before or after Seattle? This raises a number of questions. What type of agreement are you negotiating with China?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I don't think any agreement with China will be ready on time for the Seattle meeting.

Mr. André Bachand: No, of course not, but what kind of agreement are you looking for? Is it something similar to the one we have with Israel, Chile or the North American Free Trade Agreement? What kind of agreement is it?

In the negotiations with China, is there anything being said about work organization, human rights, or is it being invited to join the WTO with the understanding that everything will be negotiated after that within the WTO? Are you using the fact that China wishes to become a full-fledged member of the WTO to test the will of this huge country, where a major part of this planet's population lives, to immediately implement agreements on human rights, labour organization and the environment, which would prevent China from erecting barriers in this respect at the WTO in the future?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: The negotiations between Canada and China are almost over. We're at a very advanced stage and I really hope that before the end of the year we'll also have signed a trade agreement with China. Any trade agreement we negotiate with China will be commercially viable and will of course go in the direction of the manifest commercial interests of our people. We want this agreement that we want to be important.

As for human rights, we'll continue working very actively on this matter at the United Nations. It's something we hold dear.

As for work standards, we also want to progress by cooperating with the International Labour Organization. However, you're asking me to do the work for everybody else. There wouldn't be enough work left for my colleagues, the other ministers.

Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, in the committee's report there's an important social, human and environmental aspect. We want discussions in this respect. That's why I put the question to you in the broadest terms. As the major player remaining for the WTO is China, why not start testing its will and its open- mindedness on extremely specific points?

When someone is very hungry, maybe that's the time to... It seems to me we have a good opportunity to find compromises or get clarification without condemning China in any way.

I understand you, Minister, but what are you negotiating with China? What does it look like? Are you talking about consistency and transparency? What does it look like?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I have the conviction that trade leads to development. As soon as we have trade relations that lead to development, we can see there's a manifest improvement in human rights as well as improvement and progress for democracy. So we want to get China on to this road because, as trade leads to development, the more it develops, the more it will be in a position to respect human rights.

Canada's policy proposes to improve the consistency between the work done by the World Trade Organization, the International Labour Organization and the International Monetary Fund. I believe it's a very important contribution that we can make at the international level. I think that's the best way to make progress on all fronts. I think it would be a mistake to paralyze the whole trade question until all the other questions are settled because trade is part of the solution to the other questions.

Mr. André Bachand: Fine. Personally, I don't know as much about international trade as you do, Minister. This agreement you're about to come to with China, does it look like any other kind of agreement we have presently and that I could use to get more information? Is it the kind of agreement we have with Israel, Chile, the USA, Zimbabwe or Madagascar?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: The agreement that we are signing with China has nothing to do with the free trade agreement with Israel, Chile or any other country. It is a bilateral agreement whereby China is committing to recognize the rules of the WTO and trade in accordance with those rules.

• 1625

Mr. André Bachand: So it is like signing a membership card that has to be endorsed by 30 members.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: It means, among other things, that China must accept the WTO's rules, and it also means liberalization in a number of sectors that are of interest to us, in terms of trade.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Mr. André Bachand: I have one more question.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): No, your time is up as well. Time flies when you're having fun, eh?

Madam Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Merci beaucoup.

I'll share my time with any of the members, because my question, Mr. Minister, is a very short one and something I've been trying to understand in a very simple way.

Some words used this afternoon again caused a bit more confusion for me in trying to put pieces together. You said on the one hand we support the WTO because it's an open, rules-based trading system. On the other hand you said we want to pursue globalization with a human face. I want you to speak a little bit more about, on the one hand, the rules-based trading system, and on the other, going with a human face. It seems to me I could make some arguments as to how that human face would fit into that rules-based trading system.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: My point on this is that if you do not have a rules-based system of international trade, it is sheer force that will determine the name of the game. If sheer force, sheer power, sheer strength, determines the name of the game, we know very well which way it will always go.

So I am saying a rules-based system in which a smaller country can use the World Trade Organization and challenge a much bigger economic power because it is not respecting the rules-based system, the rules we agreed to, makes for a more human world. It means for globalization that we'll have more of a human face, because it will be rules-based, rather than based on sheer power and sheer strength. It means the smaller player can gain against the bigger player. That is to me a more human world than a jungle in which only strength and power determine the way things go.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Just once more, in terms of procedural fairness, competition law, and all those bits and pieces we speak about in our system, within the WTO is there some clear understanding around those issues?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We want to integrate the social dimensions of those concerns that are being expressed, and we intend to bring to the WTO this coherent concept the Government of Canada is promoting. We want to integrate the social dimensions as well. It is very important to make progress on that front too.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I'd like to take the rest of your time, if I could.

Minister, I think a number of us don't feel we as developed nations are doing enough for human rights. In all of these countries where there are human rights abuses, corruption of government officials is one of the main causes.

I wish I knew more of what I was talking about when I say this. I know the U.S. government has legislation prohibiting their companies from paying government officials in order to do business. Do we in Canada have similar laws for companies we know are participating in corrupt systems? And is this punishable when they're caught?

• 1630

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Absolutely, Madame Chair, we do have such foreign bribery legislation. It is very important. I believe the WTO will also make an important contribution by improving the transparency of commercial transactions around the world. If we do have an improvement of the transparency of any commercial transactions going on, we therefore make an important contribution to eliminate corruption and to eliminate bribery. It is another important contribution.

As you know, Canada is one of the signatories of the OECD anti-corruption convention; we signed it in 1997. I had the great honour of signing it in the name of Canada at that time, because I replaced my colleague, Lloyd Axworthy. I was very pleased to do that at that time.

And obviously we're very pleased that the Prime Minister, Monsieur Chrétien, confirmed not very long ago that we will be increasing our international aid budget, which will help us build the capacity of developing countries to involve themselves more in the trade arena.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): However, how many people have actually been charged, how many Canadians? We know bribery and corruption goes on, and I don't think we can say we're any cleaner than other countries that feel they must do business in....

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Well, the law was passed earlier this year, and I will pass your question to the Solicitor General in terms of how many people have been charged. I don't know. I'll ask the Solicitor General, my colleague.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you.

Well, Mr. Minister, as you know, I'll be accompanying you to Seattle as your shadow.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'll keep an eye out to ensure agriculture remains number one on the agenda.

From your response to my four questions, I'm still not satisfied with your consultation process. In reference to the provinces, you said you talked to the trade officials and the ministers. What I'm trying to get at is a broad-based consultation with Canadians, you see, not with the trade officials. I'm also not talking about the parliamentary committee going on that, because I've been on the parliamentary committee, and we know what kinds of witnesses come there.

As for the consultation process that goes on with civil society, you just said that in Toronto, you met with the civil society. That again raises a question: What are you trying to do? You have elected representatives here in the country. If you're going to meet with civil society directly and listen to them directly, then it's possible that you're allowing the democratic process in this country to be bypassed.

I don't have a problem with civil society coming to a broader-based consultation process, but it should be done through the parliamentary committees, both in the provinces as well as here.

Perhaps you would like to address that concern I have.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Minister, before you answer, I have something to say.

Those were disparaging remarks regarding the types of people who appear before a committee. I would like to have it on record, please, that we saw 425 groups: 88 industrial associations; 45 agriculture; 32 business and professional; 26 governments; 61 academics, researchers, and professionals; and a total of five from civil society, which are groups based on the environment, labour, human rights, religious, and others. And we had only 48 individuals. I would just like that to go on the record as the types of people we saw when we travelled across this country.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Thank you, Madame Chair. Once again, I do thank your committee for all the time you have spent meeting with Canadians and groups. This is very worth while and very valuable.

• 1635

On top of that, we have formed SAGIT committees on which hundreds of business individuals generously give their time to help us, the government, to better understand issues on a sectoral basis. And it is working very, very well on the SAGIT side.

I have another stakeholders consultation this coming Friday. I don't know how many sectors will be there, but I will be spending hours with them, again to understand the stakeholders better. And I have a business advisory committee that Red Wilson has been chairing on a voluntary basis to help us understand the issues better. We have a website; we have lots of communication. Thousands and thousands of Canadians write to us and tell us, and we're very, very grateful to all those who express themselves and who help us understand more about the impact of trade on the lives of Canadians.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Madam Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for your report and for your department's response to our report.

I have three questions, maybe two specific ones and perhaps one more general one.

Agriculture and services, of course, as we all know, have been on the table from years back as to what's going to be talked about at the WTO. I know Mr. Obhrai raised the question of agriculture. I wonder, Minister, if you could reiterate Canada's position on supply management, as we enter these WTO negotiations. That's number one.

Number two is on culture and your response to recommendations 28 and 29: that the government agree that Canada should pursue a new international instrument on cultural diversity. I know a lot of work is being done across Canada right now on how to effect that. A concern I have is that you stated during your comments that there will be no working group on culture. Yet one of the recommendations we had in the WTO report was, if feasible, to bring the cultural instrument within the auspices of the WTO. Is this a plan we hope to put into effect in the future?

I just want to clarify so it doesn't come back that there will be nothing on culture at the WTO. What do we intend to do? What is our plan to move forward on this instrument so it actually becomes a reality and not a separate instrument, or separate at the UN, and we face the same problems that we do with enforcing labour standards and environment?

Last but not least, you started off your speech today by saying that we will be guided by two principles to direct our actions: confidence and coherence. Coherence is a new term that I'm hearing; it's not something that came up as we crossed Canada. You talk about bringing a call for increased coherence to the WTO discussions. Perhaps you wouldn't mind taking some time to explain just what you mean by coherence and perhaps give specific examples of greater coherence and what that means and what you will be bringing up at the WTO in Seattle.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Thank you very much for your three questions.

On the supply management in the field of agriculture, let me tell you it is a field that is extremely important. We believe supply management is bringing stability and order to our domestic market. We believe deeply that Canadians benefit from the best grocery basket available around the world—the cheapest and of remarkable quality. This is something, of course, we want to maintain.

We believe that, honestly, in the field of agriculture, including under supply management productions, we have lived up to our commitments at the Uruguay Round. We have lived up to the Marrakesh agreement. I will say that other countries might have not have done as well as we did, so we don't have any lessons to take from that. We're saying they have to move on export subsidies and the massive farm subsidies they give in the United States before we are going to look into what we do in our domestic market, because their subsidies are direct distortion of third markets, direct distortion of international markets.

We will uphold Canada's domestic orderly marketing systems, such as the supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board. That's absolutely clear. And it will not prevent us from working hard at eliminating the subsidies follies that are distorting international trade. These, to me, are different fields and different angles, not at all contradictory.

• 1640

On culture, we do want to pursue a new instrument. Some people speak about UNESCO, and some people speak about a new instrument altogether. I am nervous of the fact that the United States is not a member of UNESCO, but maybe that is the venue, and we will look into how that develops. I'm working very closely with my colleague, the Minister of Heritage, Sheila Copps, to make sure we do the best possible job on that front, and we are getting support around the world for it.

However, we think the cultural diversity concept is so important that we should address it in all fora, wherever we go, independently of how it evolves. I cannot prejudge how that instrument will evolve. Canada is an important player, with Madame Copps's lead on it. Madame Trautmann, the French minister, is working very hard with us. I'm saying we cannot prejudge how the whole thing will evolve.

In the meantime, we should never neglect to promote cultural diversity in all other fora where we go. That includes the WTO, because we want to protect the right of governments to play a role in the protection and preservation and promotion of cultural diversity.

On the theme of coherence, the WTO, we believe, should work more closely with—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Could you do it in about 30 seconds? I'm being very strict on time.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Okay.

On the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, there needs to be more coordination so we do not contradict one another between the tools we use. We want to work more closely with UNCTAD, the United Nations Committee on Trade and Development, and we believe we should, at home, work at building capacity through CIDA's work on a bilateral basis with a number of these countries.

I could go on and on, but I want to respect your time.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): It's best you don't. Thank you.

Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Minister, you told us that representatives of six provincial governments would be accompanying you to Seattle. Could you tell us which provinces will be represented?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: The final list of delegates has not been drawn up, and I do not want to announce it as long as it has not been finalized or make it public bit by bit. However, in the cases of concern to you, i.e. Quebec, I can confirm that Minister Guy Julien will be the Quebec minister who will be part of the delegation. Yes, he is the Member for Trois-Rivières.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Along the same lines, could you tell us what real power the provincial representatives will have? Will they participate with you in the negotiations? Will they be integrated into the Canadian delegation? Will they be observers? Will they have their own team of advisors? How will the negotiations play out?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I will lead the Canadian delegation to Seattle, and Mr. Julien will be part of that delegation. I could not tell you if anyone will be accompanying him.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Does the federal government expect provincial representatives to go on their own or to be accompanied by a team?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Julien can be accompanied by a team if he so desires. What I am saying is that he is a member of my delegation. If he wants to bring along 12 other people, that is his business, but the 12 other people will not be part of my delegation.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Let's move on to substantive issues.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: There is a danger that the Canadian government will be led into negotiating agreements that do not come directly under its jurisdiction, but cover areas under provincial jurisdiction. Given section XXIV and the WTO's rules, can you guarantee that if the debates flowed into areas such as health and education...? You know how important those areas are as a unique society, to use the federalists' terminology.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: That language is popular in all regions in Quebec these days.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Yes, it works well in Quebec, doesn't it? Can you guarantee that you will not sign agreements of that nature, because section XXIV states that the sovereign signatory State must commit to enforcing what it has signed through the governments that come under it? If these negotiations were to cover education and health, will you commit today to not signing anything without the agreement of the Quebec government?

• 1645

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: An international agreement on an area under provincial jurisdiction would not have force of law in the absence of an agreement from the province. Even if I did sign an agreement in those areas, it would not have force of law. Moreover, I once experienced a similar situation. I clearly remember a specific conflict that occurred in the 1980s. So I reiterate that an international agreement in an area under provincial jurisdiction does not have force of law in a province without the province's consent.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Are you aware that if Canada did conclude such an agreement, it would liable to sanctions imposed by the international community? We feel very threatened and we are counting on you not to sign anything without the agreement of the Quebec government in health and education.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We will be working in very close co- operation, and you have no reason to be concerned. Moreover, there is a consensus on health and education.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Given your attitude in the House of Commons, we might well be...

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I do not know what you're referring to.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: We will not be playing second fiddle very long.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, yes. I think your leader made a mistake. You should not dredge it up again.

The Chair: You have two minutes left.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: At the end of his speech, the Minister states:

I believe they want us to pursue globalization with a human face; remembering that people, not profits are the key to sustaining our efforts...

You talk about globalization with a human face. Those comments might seem a bit innocent, whereas we know how strictly others judge globalization. Many people talk about globalized poverty.

During this privileged forum in Seattle, do you plan to defend the underprivileged and ensure that the growing gap between the rich and the poor due to globalization gets smaller and not bigger? Is your objective to ensure that wealth is better distributed on the planet? You have made some somewhat angelic comments.

You have given us a good example of the beautiful language and position of the Canadian government. But up until now, since you have been before the committee, you have still not talked about people, about human beings. That omission clearly reflects the Canadian philosophy, and I find that worrisome. Will you be taking advantage of this privileged forum to discipline international capitalism to some extent? It is high time that was done.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I can assure you that we will continue to promote Canadian values of solidarity, co-operation and respect for human beings. That is important. I spent my time here today telling you that trade leads to development. The former secretary general of the World Trade Organization told us recently that 1.5 billion people from one end of the planet to the other have seen their standard of living increase twofold over 10 years. Globalization has also been very positive.

With respect to the less positive aspects, I can assure you that the Canadian government will continue to work very hard to improve life for people. I noted that Prime Minister Chrétien, who has just toured Africa, was thanked everywhere he went for Canada's extraordinary contribution to respecting people and for being instrumental in magnificent development. Although you say that the Canadian approach does not take people into account, I do not believe that corresponds to the message we heard in Africa, which expressed its recognition to the Prime Minister of Canada and the Canadian government.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being with us here today. I'd like to move on to another topic and ask you a question about emerging technology.

Dealing with electronic commerce, in terms of market access, depends on current and relevant trade rules, ie the GATT in the case of goods and the GATS in the case of services. As we saw with the two disputes submitted to the WTO, with respect to periodicals and bananas, it is difficult to determine when a link exists between goods and services. The WTO report on electronic commerce stipulates in fact that all products are a combination of goods and services, which raises the issue of how to enforce two different types of obligations.

It is a highly complex matter. Some witnesses we heard stated that members of the WTO should start worrying about what these new forms of trade cover before looking at how to integrate standards and principles into the trading system. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I fully agree with you, Mr. Patry. We must have a good grasp of the issues. Moreover, many of the WTO rules already apply to electronic commerce.

• 1650

Canada recommended setting up a working group, and not a negotiating group, specifically to assess the scope and gain a full understanding of these issues.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I was too quick and short, Madame Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I think you may have been too short. Just a moment. No, that's fine.

Mr. Robinson has his question.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have three questions.

The minister mentioned Canada's reputation in Africa, and the Prime Minister was in South Africa. Of course, under the WTO rules a government could, under its procurement policy, say we will not enter into contracts with a government that trades with a repressive government in South Africa. That was one of the vehicles we used to put pressure on South Africa.

Today, if a sovereign government of Massachusetts wanted to put pressure on the repressive regime in Burma and said they won't buy from companies that trade with Burma, the WTO rules say they can't do that. If a Canadian government today, federal or provincial, wanted to say the same thing, to use its procurement policy to put pressure on repressive regimes, as South Africa was and as Burma is today, under the WTO rules we couldn't do that.

This minister says that's the ruling in the WTO. This minister says go somewhere else. My question is, why go somewhere else? Why won't this government fight to change the WTO?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No, what I am saying is that what you've just said is absolutely wrong.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's the ruling.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: When a group of countries.... If there is a consensus at a United Nations resolution, the WTO accepts them.

In the case of Massachusetts, to which you always come back, it was a unilateral decision by the Massachusetts state government to do that. But when there is a consensus among a group of countries, and a United Nations resolution, the WTO accepts it. It's not true to say that the WTO does not accept it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's absolute nonsense. The United Nations has condemned Burma overwhelmingly. The state of Massachusetts wanted to use its purchasing policy to condemn them, and the WTO said no.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: The sanctions against South Africa were UN-led.

Mr. Svend Robinson: We're not talking about sanctions. We're talking about procurement policy.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: That was part of the UN.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Under WTO, procurement policy can't be used, and that's a shame. This minister is more and more selling out our sovereignty, this government, over issues like human rights and the environment. That's what he's doing. That's exactly what he's doing.

I have two other brief questions.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: I'll go on that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Will the minister indicate what Canada's position is on the membership of Taiwan in the WTO? It's one of the most dynamic and vibrant economies, one of the largest economies in the world. What is Canada's position on the membership of Taiwan in the WTO? Does Canada support that?

My final question is with respect to health care. The minister said we support public health care, medicare. Why is it that officials of his own department are actively supporting an elite private hospital in Beijing aimed at foreigners? The Canadian embassy paid $30,000 for its membership in this exclusive, elite, members-only hospital that would be illegal in Canada. Why is his department supporting this elite hospital if he believes in public health care?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Robinson, on the—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Hold on.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No, no. That's important. Mr. Robinson is now saying the sovereignty of this country is threatened. Are you telling me that Canada is less sovereign today than it was five years ago, when we have 1.9 million more jobs, the vast majority of them being related to our progress on international trade?

Mr. Svend Robinson: What has that to do with sovereignty?

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We're a lot more sovereign when we don't have that many people unemployed. We are a lot more sovereign when we don't have a deficit any more. We are a lot more sovereign when our rules-based system gives us access to international markets. We are more sovereign when our people can go and conduct business on the rules-based system abroad.

• 1655

We have a definition of sovereignty that is far more dynamic and forward-looking than just setting down what government or Parliament can legislate on. We want to empower society. We want to empower citizens who have important trade and economic developments to bring to the world along with jobs in Canada. That has a lot to do with sovereignty. That is at the heart of sovereignty, to empower society.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I wonder if the minister can answer the question.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: On Taiwan, we completed the market access negotiations, and we support access to Taiwan.

On the Beijing hospital, we want to improve the health services there, if they want it. We always state our own—

Mr. Svend Robinson: This is for the elite. It's health service for the elite.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, but can we build a hospital if they ask us to build one? What I mean is they largely pay for it. It is a business. It's not up to us to determine how China will run its own health system.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Why are we spending $30,000 of taxpayers' money for membership in this exclusive, elite hospital? They already have a hospital.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Minister, could I make a request? I think the Burma main issue has been oversimplified today. Tomorrow we're going to be hearing from Burma, and I'm wondering if you could have your department issue us papers with the clarification of the ruling pertaining to the government procurement agreement as it affects the main case. I think we would all be interested in getting some clarification on that without—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a point of order. The chair is totally out of order here. For the chair to suggest that a particular issue a member has questioned is oversimplifying.... That may be the view of the chair, but it is entirely inappropriate for the chair to editorialize in that way. Do your job properly.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Point taken, Mr. Robinson. However, I would like the the department to supply the documents.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'd like the minister to explain why Canada is paying money to be a member of this hospital.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: We want to improve the health services in China. Our own staff can't get help, and if China itself allows better health services, we should support that. I can give you a more complete response in writing on this particular point tomorrow.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I would appreciate that. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Minister, we appreciate having had you appear before us today. You've taken a bit of a grilling, and I think we've all enjoyed it. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.